Does God Exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
-Pro argues for God's existence using various arguments.
-Con argues that God does not exist. And yes, Con actually has to provide arguments for the non-existence of God. For some reason people never understand this.
-Pro gives definitions and sets up debate
-Con accepts the debate (acceptance only).
-Pro gives opening argument
-Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals.
-Pro responds to what Con argued
-Con responds to what Pro argued (does not defend arguments)
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.
God-the greatest conceivable being.
Exist-have objective reality or being.
Since "greatest possible" isn't perfectly clear, allow me to say:
I assume you're referring to a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly loving and wise, has perfect self-control, perfect desires, a perfect history, perfect plans...
If you don't mean any of these, do be so kind as to say so. And if there are other important features I've left out, please, do reveal them.
Best of luck! :)
The Axiological Argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Since this premise is generally not disputed, I will only give a quick defense of it. Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
a. Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness.
Murder is an action that all people (insane people are the exception) recognize as absolutely wrong. Taking the life of a human being unjustly is undeniably wrong and everybody knows it. That said, if we know what is wrong, we must have some idea of what is right. For example, if someone were to say that 2+2 were equal to five, we would know that they were wrong. But in order to know that, we would have to have some idea of what the right answer was.
b. If there wasn't a Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it.
We have all done something wrong at some point in our lives. It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt them. For example, if I were to say some harsh words to a family member of mine, I might try to offer them excuses like "I was hungry."
However, if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to say sorry whenever we did something "wrong". In fact, lets say that I owed a person money. I wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back.
But this is all ridiculous since we all are aware of the same objective moral law. And that is why we make excuses for violating it and that is the reason why we just know when someone wrongs us.
c. All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong exist.
Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (Lewis 6). The same people that say that morality is opinion based (or subjective) would still be irritated at people for treating them poorly. I can imagine that my opponent would be irritated if the voters gave me all the votes merely because they liked my username better than his. He would certainly feel wronged. But the thing is, if morality was subjective, no one should ever feel wronged. Why would someone feel wronged if morality was based on opinions?
Sometimes people try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective?
d. If there is no objective morality, there is no reason to be moral. If there was no objective standard of right/wrong, then all we would have is peoples opinions. Our opinion on morality would be like our opinion on what the best flavor of ice cream is. It just would not matter If we did something that people thought was wrong since there would be no objectively wrong things in the first place.
Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. The question "why be moral" and "Why benefit society" are almost the same question. Benefiting society is a moral thing to do...but we want to know why someone should be moral if there is no objective morality.
Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The Teleological Argument:
1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.
What about the fact that "the amount of matter (or more precisely energy density) in our universe at the Big Bang turns out to be finely-tuned to about 1 part in 1055. In other words, to get a life-permitting universe the amount of mass would have to be set to a precision of 55 decimal places" (http://crossexamined.org...).
What about the galaxy mass distribution? If "too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation. [And] If too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabilized by the gravity and
radiation from adjacent spiral arms." See link below...
And what about these other 400 factors that have to come into play?
How can you possibly say that the universe is not fine tuned for life?
How about these facts? The 23 degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. Then there is the fact that if the gravitational forces in our universe were altered by .00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, the sun would not exist and then we would not either.
2. Fine-tuning can potentially be explained by chance, necessity or design.
3. Not by chance or necessity.
First of all, the odds are so against a life permitting universe that no one can even argue for necessity. As for chance, the chances of our universe existing are so great that they outnumber the number of individual atoms that currently exist. But not only that, chance is not even an explanation. If a coin is tossed, it may have a 50% chance of showing heads but the cause of that happening is that a human flipped the coin. So the question is, what caused the universe to exist? I want to know why the odds were beat. Since chance and necessity are not good explanations...
4. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design.
The Cosmological Argument:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
Modern science supports that the universe had a beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics helps us figure out that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you get this infinite point. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand."
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
Okay, so you've got three arguments, have I got that right?
Would a fair summary of them be as follows?
1. Morals exist, which is only possible if there is a God(read: maximally-great-being), so there is one(a maximally-great-being).
2. The universe's life-allowance is so improbable that it can only be the result of design or necessity, and there's nothing that makes it necessary, so it must be design. (Are you saying that if it's design, it must have been designed by the maximally-great-being?)
3. Since the universe began, it must have a cause. Because science does not know what the cause is, the cause must be a personal being, which is God(read: a maximally-great-being).
Please do correct any errors in my representation of your arguments. I wouldn't want us talking past each other.
I think I might actually agree with these (as I understand them), pretty much. Let me just ask a few questions about just what you mean.
1. The morals argument
I found this in your argument: " Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code."
What is it exactly that God(maximally-great-being) is doing that is making an objective moral code? Like, supposing he exists, and he wants certain things, or has a nature consistent with certain things, or commands certain things (or whatever it is that you think he does), how does this make an objective moral code, in your mind?
Is it as simple as that it doesn't come from humans? Like, any moral code that doesn't come from humans is and objective moral code or something?
I'm not quite clear on that, but I think, depending on your answer, we might be in agreement as far as this point goes.
2. The fine-tuning argument.
Suppose the universe WAS designed...
Wait, is that all you're saying? That it was designed?
Or are you claiming that the designing was done by this maximally great being? How do you establish that this being did the designing, and that the being was maximally great?
This argument is supposed to prove the existence of a maximally great being, somehow, isn't it?
3. The cause of the universe argument
So, I could buy this argument. It certainly seems intuitive that there be a cause to the universe, at least.
How do you get from there to saying that the cause is this maximally great being?
Particularly this line interests me: " Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)."
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, or more likely, you have some more details to share that I'll need before I understand.
What exactly is making you think that the cause of the universe was a personal agent? The fact that science doesn't know what the cause of the universe is???
And supposing your explanation is persuasive that the cause of the universe is a personal agent, is there something else that is making you think that the agent is maximally great? Like, how would you know if it was perfectly honest (or do you think it is? I don't want to put words in your mouth)?
You haven't said this, but I almost get the impression that you're saying that the objective-moral-law-maker, the fine-tuner-of-the-universe, and the cause-of-the-universe ARE ALL THE SAME THING.
Which sounds fascinating. IS there something that makes you think that these three things are all the same thing, instead of being 2 or 3 different things?
My opponent first gives some summaries of my arguments. He wants to know if he summarized them correctly. I will quote his summary of each of my three arguments and then I will respond to it.
"Morals exist, which is only possible if there is a God(read: maximally-great-being), so there is one(a maximally-great-being)."
This argument does not talk about the number of Gods. But yes, I am in fact arguing that an objective moral law can only exist if there is a God.
"The universe's life-allowance is so improbable that it can only be the result of design or necessity, and there's nothing that makes it necessary, so it must be design. (Are you saying that if it's design, it must have been designed by the maximally-great-being?)"
I give an argument for why the universe does not exist by necessity and then I explain why the universe could not have existed due to chance. Therefore I come to the conclusion the the universe was designed. And if something is designed, then that thing also must have a designer which in this case would be God.
"Since the universe began, it must have a cause. Because science does not know what the cause is, the cause must be a personal being, which is God(read: a maximally-great-being)."
Since the Big Bang Theory supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, the cause of the universe has to be timeless, immaterial, omnipresent, and etc...The universe encompasses all of space, time, matter, and energy. Therefore the cause of the universe would have to transcend these things.
1. The Moral Argument
Any moral code that came from humans would not be objective since the code we created would be based off of our own opinions. Therefore an objective moral code would have to come from a universal law giver.
2. The Teleological Argument
My opponent seems to have no issue with the universe being designed. But yes, something that is designed would have to have a creator. And if it is proven that the universe is designed, then the designer would have to have a crazy amount of power, it would have to be space-less (it must transcend its creation), and etc...A God is the only designer that meets all of these qualifications.
3. The Cosmological Argument
My opponent asks "How do you get from there to saying that the cause is this maximally great being?"
Since the cause of the universe has to be....
Eternal-the cause of the universe led to the existence of time.
Omnipresent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of space.
Omnipotent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of everything.
Personal-William Lane Craig states that "the cause of the universe must be an ultramundane being which transcends space and time and is therefore either an unembodied mind or an abstract object; it cannot be the latter; hence, it must be the former, which is to say that this being is personal" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).
Therefore, the cause of the universe must be God since he is all of those things. Nothing else is all of those things that the cause is. So God is the best explanation for why the universe exists.
4. Now I will again quote my opponent's questions and then respond to them.
a. "What exactly is making you think that the cause of the universe was a personal agent? The fact that science doesn't know what the cause of the universe is???"
The moral argument shows that the God would be moral, the teleological argument shows that the cause is creative, intelligent, and etc...You can't get more personal than that. And by personal, I mean what William Lane Craig means. He defines personal as "endowed with rationality, self-consciousness, and volition." I agree with that.
b. "And supposing your explanation is persuasive that the cause of the universe is a personal agent, is there something else that is making you think that the agent is maximally great? Like, how would you know if it was perfectly honest"
All of these argument argue for the existence of a maximally great being. The moral argument in particular would be the argument to use in order to show that God is honest. Surely the creator of the objective moral law would have to be completely moral in the first place. After-all, an immoral being could never create a perfect moral law.
c. "You haven't said this, but I almost get the impression that you're saying that the objective-moral-law-maker, the fine-tuner-of-the-universe, and the cause-of-the-universe ARE ALL THE SAME THING."
I do think that. I guess now is the time to appeal to Occam's razor. Never multiple the number of causes beyond necessity. That said, I am not really concerned with the number of God's in this debate. However, I fail to see how there could ever be more than one maximally great being...how could two Gods be omnipotent? That just doesn't make sense logically.
Thanks for a good round. If you want to give your own arguments in the next round, feel free to do so. If not, then we will continue on regardless of you ignoring the round rules.
Beliefs are like chains. Their strength relies on the strength of every detail, or every link.
As it is written, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
Counterintuitively, adding another link to a chain does not make the chain stronger, but weaker. Every extra link is an extra chance for one link to be weak, and the chain fail.
Every detail added to a belief makes it less likely that the belief is true. Suppose I tell you there"s an animal in the next room, and you try to describe it. How can you be most likely to describe it accurately?
By keeping it simple!
If you say "Something alive," then you only have one chance to be wrong (if the animal is dead. But if you say "Something four-legged and alive," then you now have two chances to be incorrect (if the animal is dead, or if it doesn"t have four legs).
Even if it IS alive, you can STILL be wrong if the other part is false (not four-legged).
If you say it's something blue, alive, four-legged, sharp-toothed, fast, can't swim, and lives five years, then you have LOTS of chances to be wrong, and very probably are wrong somewhere.
All beliefs work this way. Every detail is an added burden, another chance for the belief to be false.
So, the more detailed an idea, the more likely it is to be false. The God you"ve described is VERY detailed, since it is a maximally great being. In EVERY possible way, there must be perfection.
You"ve also added that the being has certain other qualities, maleness, timelessness, doesn"t inhabit space, immaterial.
And you"ve added even more detail by giving the God a certain history: caused the universe, fine-tuned the universe.
If any one of these details is false, then the idea is false, and needs correcting. Since you have so many details, it is unlikely that they are ALL true. Therefore, it is unlikely that any such being exists.
Now, to your arguments. Let me start with Occam"s razor.
Suppose you find a dozen trees in a straight line in Venezuela. You conclude this is probably the result of design. Then you go to New York and find two trash cans stacked on top of each other. You conclude that this is also the result of design.
Does Occam"s razor demand that you consider both of these things to have been done by the same person?
Well, if it does, then it"s just wrong.
As it happens, though, it does not require that we say that every design or action we come across has to be done by the same being. Occam"s razor, as used by scientists today, is not perfectly reliable, but it is often correct. It says: "The more complex an explanation, the less likely it is to be true."
"The simpler an explanation, the less improbable."
Actually, when I was saying that detailed ideas have lots of chances to be wrong, and so are improbable, I was using Occam"s razor, in the way that we find actually works. Occam's razor says that more complex ideas are less probable.
"Any moral code that came from humans would not be objective since the code we created would be based off of our own opinions."
So, what does God do that avoids this problem (I think you didn"t answer this last time)? Why should we do what he says? Is it just because he"s the biggest and strongest?
If we think it"s enough to not listen to humans, then why not listen to what chimps seem to think are good ideas? Why not aliens? Or demons?
There must be more to it than not-humanness. What does God DO (that people don"t) that makes things objectively moral?
Plus, let me point out, that even if this proves that there is a lawgiver, that doesn"t prove that the lawgiver also created the universe, any more than proving that a line of trees was designed proves that the designer also stacked trash cans on top of each other somewhere else.
2.Teleological argument (The Fine-Tuned Argument) and 3. The Cause argument
So, suppose God made some extra space on the Statue of Liberty"s crown today. The fact that that particular part of space had a beginning on Saturday wouldn"t prove that ALL space had a beginning on Saturday.
Likewise, wouldn"t proving that THIS space, mass and time started with the Big Bang NOT prove that ALL space, mass and time had a beginning with the Big Bang?
We know that THIS space, mass and time had a beginning, but we couldn"t say for sure if ALL space, mass and time had a beginning.
So, for all we know, the cause of THIS space, mass and time, that made the Big Bang, might not have created ALL space, mass and time, and the cause might even be made out of mass, and inhabit space and time?
And what makes us think that the cause of the universe is a maximally great being? If all we see is that the universe had a cause, then couldn"t it just as easily be universe-causing leprechauns or flying magic bears or Vishnu, or a Great Cosmic Fish with universes for scales?
And of course, we still have to remind ourselves that whatever the fine-tuner of the universe is, we don"t know if it"s also the moral-maker, or the cause-of-the-universe.
I really need to hear what you think God is doing that makes an objective law.
But depending on the answer, it"s worth saying also that even if some being is transcendent, and created and fine-tuned the universe, etc, that still wouldn"t tell us if the being is honest or not. Or loving or not.
Or if it"s still alive (maybe it died).
Or if it"s all-powerful (maybe all it can do is create life-permitting universes and make laws).
In short, if your arguments prove X, you can only say that you"ve proven X. You can"t say that you"ve proven X + Y + Z + WWW.
If all of your arguments WORK, then you can say that the cause of the universe was a transcendent, personal being that also made morals and fine-tuned the universe. But you can"t say that the being is still alive. Or that the being can do other things besides make and fine-tune universes and make laws. Or that the being knows everything (maybe it made the universe without knowing everything about it).
Consider. If you became persuaded that all these arguments were flawed, would you stop believing in God?
Then maybe you don't believe in God because of these arguments. You might believe in God because of other things. Are those things not more worth presenting as arguments than the arguments we've discussed?
Of course, if you really would stop believing in God if these arguments were false, then I suppose these arguments really are the reason you believe in God.
1. More details are harmful to a statement/argument
a. My opponent states that "the more detailed an idea, the more likely it is to be false." I don't see how this is logical at all. If I were to describe Donald Trump using 1,000 words, why would that make my description more likely to be false? Wouldn't that actually make my argument more accurate?
b. My opponent then states that "the God you've described is VERY detailed, since it is a maximally great being. In EVERY possible way, there must be perfection."
I have used some words to describe this God. I haven't counted how many I have used but I can't imagine I have given more than 10 words to describe this being. I fail to see why this fact harms my arguments though.
c. My opponent claims that "If any one of these details is false, then the idea is false, and needs correcting."
I disagree. If one were to prove that a detail was false then only that detail would be considered false. I don't see how proving a single detail false would somehow get the whole idea to be considered false. But I guess it depends on how important the detail is.
d. My opponent concludes their argument by stating that "since you have so many details, it is unlikely that they are ALL true. Therefore, it is unlikely that any such being exists."
I don't think this argument is successful. I mean, this argument would cause authors to lose their jobs. Authors use hundreds of details in their books, and according to my opponent, their claims would be more likely to be false due to that fact. Not only authors though, my opponent uses 10,000 or less characters when they are typing their arguments for this very debate. Does that also mean that his argument is more likely to be false?
2. Occam's Razor
a. My opponent said that "As it happens, though, it does not require that we say that every design or action we come across has to be done by the same being."
I never once said that this was the case. However, Occam's Razor does tell us to not multiple causes beyond necessity and in the case of the universe, only one God is needed in order for the universe to begin to exist. So I see no need to believe in the existence of multiple Gods.
3. The Moral Argument
a. My opponent wants to know why we should listen to God on the subject of morality. The answer is somewhat simple. The author of the objective moral law would have to be moral themselves. Why? Well, you can't have an immoral being create a perfect moral code just like you can't have an unintelligent person ace a math test. Therefore the cause of the objective moral law would have to be the embodiment of all things moral. So God would certainly know what he was talking about.
As for doing what God says...this is not relevant to the debate. My only goal is to show that a God exists. However, some religions do use fear to get people to do moral actions and others have other reasons. Christians have reason to be moral since their God is consistently moral towards them. In other words, they are moral because they love their God.
b. My opponent then goes on to assert that even if I prove that there was a lawgiver, it wouldn't follow that the being also created the universe and etc...
It would if we use Occam's Razor and then accept that there is only one God. However, this debate is only about me showing that at least one God exists. I do not have to show that there is only a single God.
4. The Teleological Argument
a. My opponent asserts that "We know that THIS space, mass and time had a beginning, but we couldn"t say for sure if ALL space, mass and time had a beginning."
This doesn't make sense to me. The Big Bang Theory shows that all of space, time, energy, and matter had a beginning. Not just the space that currently exists. So the cause of the Big Bang (God) would in effect have created the entire universe.
b. My opponent says that "it"s worth saying also that even if some being is transcendent, and created and fine-tuned the universe, etc, that still wouldn"t tell us if the being is honest or not. Or loving or not."
Again, the moral argument would show that the being is honest and etc...The teleological and the cosmological arguments aren't used to prove that God is moral.
c. My opponent questions whether the being would still be alive. The cause of the universe would be eternal since it caused time to exist. So yes, God would still be alive.
d. My opponent also questions whether God would be all-powerful or all-knowing. Since my arguments lead to the conclusion that God could create things out of nothing, I think it is obvious that he would have to be all-powerful. God would certainly know everything since he created everything. So I think these objections can be put aside pretty easily.
e. My opponent asks "Consider. If you became persuaded that all these arguments were flawed, would you stop believing in God?"
My answer is no. However my opponent has not showed any flaws with the arguments in my opinion.
f. My opponent suggests that I have other arguments since my faith does not reside in the ones I presented. And ultimately, my faith is not based on arguments. It is based on my relationship with God and on his spoken word. But I cannot use those things in an online debate for various reasons.
I thank my opponent for this debate and I hope we have both learned something knew.
If the truth of these arguments does not affect your belief, then they aren't your real reasons for believing.
I suppose you believed before you heard these arguments, and then simply accepted them because they supported what you already believed.
There's something called motivated cognition.
I can think of five kinds...or six, I guess.
2 control what kinds of arguments you judge at all
2 others control WHICH ideas you judge (when you do judge)
And 2 others control HOW you judge the ideas in front of you.
Motivated Neutrality and Motivated Judgment control whether or not you judge things at all.
Motivated Neutrality - When you see an argument that you don't like, but that you can't find any flaws in, you keep it from affecting you by NOT judging. You say things like "Ah, but who can know for certain? Nothing is for certain. Nobody really knows for sure." Or you just keep a blank mind and move on without thinking any more about it.
Motivated Judgment - On the other hand, if it's an argument you DO like, you have no problem judging it, and saying that it makes sense. "Of course that makes sense; anybody can see that!"
These two let you bias your judgment by avoiding reacting to arguments you don't like, and by REACTING to arguments you do like.
The next two, motivated stopping and motivated continuation, control which arguments you look at.
Motivated stopping - If you find arguments you like, you STOP, and don't look for others that might make you have to question your belief. You can know you're stopping out of motivation if it would be REALLY easy for you to find more information, but you just don't do it. You don't look up arguments AGAINST your idea on google, you only search for "reasons why (my belief) is right" and then stop.
Motivated continuation - If you find arguments against your belief, you DON'T stop. You keep looking and looking, for more and more information until you finally find some that lets you believe what you already want to believe.
Motivated stopping and motivated continuation let you build up an imbalanced view of arguments.
Motivated skepticism and motivated credulity control HOW you judge arguments in front of you.
Motivated skepticism - you demand more evidence from beliefs you don't like. You examine them more closely for flaws. You don't buy them even though you would find them persuasive if they worked for your side.
Motivated credulity - You demand less evidence for beliefs you like. You don't look too closely for flaws. You buy them even though you wouldn't buy them if they were on the other side.
I suspect some of these are at play.
There are certain parts of my arguments that you have not addressed. You've avoided responding to them.
I've found that people often go over arguments they don't like, and move from one argument to the next, looking for one they feel they have a good response to.
If there's an argument they don't have a good response to, rather than consider if it makes sense or not, they simple ignore it, and move on until they can find something they feel more comfortable with.
I'll say it one more time. If you prove that some design was done in Venezuela, and that some design was done in New York, there is no law of reasoning, Occam's or otherwise, that demands that you think that both designs were done by the same thing.
If you prove a lawgiver, and you prove a fine-tuner, there's no law of reasoning, Occam's or otherwise, that tells you that they are the same thing. You're going to have to PROVE it. You're going to need, at LEAST, the smallest piece of evidence.
I can prove that laws were made in the US, and we can probably infer a lawmaker (OR LAWMAKERS).
I can prove that a building was made in China, and we can infer an architect.
What possible rule could tell us that the architect has to be the same person as the lawmaker?
I've discussed Occam. The real occam. It doesn't demand that we think the architect is the same person as the lawmaker.
And it doesn't demand we think the moral lawgiver is the same thing as the fine-tuner.
You've also avoided explaining what you think God is DOING that is making moral law. I suspect this is not an accident. There's nothing He could do.
He could say it, demand it, be it, whatever. It wouldn't make anything objectively moral.
If all you wanted was a non-human source (for whatever reason), then an alien would work just as well. Or a chimpanzee. And of course, you could have multiple laws from multiple entities.
If I argued like that, you would probably look closely for flaws and find them. If you turn that same examination on your own arguments, you'll find you have the ability to see the flaws in them, too.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.